ENGLISH RUSSIAN GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH FRENCH            
The Book - Old Europe Shame On You

www.oldeuropeshameonyou.com

HOME / F.A.Q.

Interpreting the book "Old Europe Shame on You"    
  1. Question: "Why does "Old Europe Shame on You" criticize the use of immigrant labor in Western countries to solve low birthrates? Don't immigrants have the right to prosper and search for a better life too? Why not solve the problem of low birthrates by inviting more immigrants?"


  2. Question: But old Malthus says that if you raise the population there will not be enough food for everybody!?


  3. Question: So you want to return the woman to the kitchen?


  4. Question: I live in Burma. What is in this book for me?


Question: "Why does "Old Europe Shame on You" criticize the use of immigrant labor in Western countries to solve low birthrates? Don't immigrants have the right to prosper and search for a better life too? Why not solve the problem of low birthrates by inviting more immigrants?"

Answer: This is a typical question/answer given by egocentric people.These people want to continue their own selfish life. For selfish people change and responsibility are bad. "Having children is hard work." "My body might change." "Having children limits my personal freedom." "I'll have to make sacrifices, such as cutting back my social life, or my career ambitions. Let somebody else have children instead of me. I want to continue my egocentrical life without responsibility for others. My pleasure boat is more important than having children. I want to go to Nepal. I don't want to change my precious life."

When a person wants to solve the problem of low birthrates using immigration he or she is subconsciously whispering the same word "precious" that the little monster called Gollum does in the film "Lord of the Rings". Gollum is constantly safeguarding his own selfish life. The selfish life is "precious".

Can you see this little greedy creature in front of you, wanting the gold ring so much that this wish finally ends his life?

The immigration solution for low birth rates is greedy, self-centered, and typically "western and egocentric". Inviting immigrants means stealing the most educated people from other countries just because one's own population has become so lazy and fat that people don't want to have children. "Oh, giving birth? Let somebody else do that."

Western politicians do not have the courage to solve the problem of low birthrates. They prefer to steal labor from other nations, and often from unindustrialized countries. Western politicians try to steal the best-educated persons from other countries and to cover up with slogans announcing that immigration is a human right. Sure, for some immigrants moving to a new country means finding new opportunities. But more often people are brought to underpopulated rich countries because they can fill in holes in the local population. These peoples' own lives are a distant second priority to the governments which accept them.

When it comes to sports, people are traded around like objects. Teams wants to get the best player for the price, and doesn't care about the player's own life. The team acts in its own interest. Inviting foreign workers to a Western country to fill in the holes of the local population is no different. These people round out the team. But is that whats called "human rights"?

Export of people to the West to fill vacancies in the Western job market should be paid for likewise as sports teams pay for transfers of foreign players. In the future the "abundance" of people in the world will decrease, and the battle for skilled, educated persons will intensify. Western politicians are covering up the biggest theft in world history at the current time. Their debates on racism in foreign countries only underline the western egocentric view of the world. In many European countries you can not even discuss or criticize the subject of immigrant labor. Self-censorship in journalism is widespread and dangerous. What could be better than a low-level debate on racism that hides reality and allows western politicians to continue to plunder other countries and drag the whole world into bad economy, regression, depression and war? Greedy and shortsighted western politicians are sucking up skilled and educated persons from other countries. This is the worst crime ever done in world history. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

And you wonder why there is war and destruction in the world? War comes from your own egoism. Your selfish life is so PRECIOUS! But by using immigration to solve the problem of egoism you are supporting dictators who want to get rid of dissidents with higher education. These often well-educated dissidents are turned from high breeders in their home country to low breeders and high greeders in the West. Immigration tears apart society in the countries losing their citizens to the West. By supporting the easy but devilish solution of immigration you are simply a tool for the greedy and shaming western politicians that want to cover up the biggest theft in history. These politicians don't want anybody to point a finger at the disastrous work they have performed. You are being fooled by the enormous efforts and means that western politicians pour into debates to cover their wrongdoings. Your own laziness is used by ruggish Western politicians that transform citizens into little puppets, and you don't understand this because your greed and laziness hinders you from thinking clearly.

Just remember the history of the city of Carthage. The officers of Carthage became so lazy that they enrolled lego soldiers and officers to do the fighting for them. Going to war is a lot of work, and dangerous: you might get hurt. Better to have somebody else to do the work. What happened ? Somebody paid the lego soldiers and officers more. And then the lego soldiers and officers attacked the city of Chartage instead. The culture of Chartage succumbed. Remember that fate and work on changing your own attitude towards your PRECIOUS life. In all of you there is a little Gollum of egoism. Be aware.


Question: But old Malthus says that if you raise the population there will not be enough food for everybody!?

Answer: Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 -1834) is old-fashioned. His views explain what happened 250 years ago, when Europe saw tremendous population growth.Thanks to new advances in medicine, great amounts of people in Europe were able to avoid or survive disease, including babies. Never had so many people survived before, and Europe's population grew. Underpopulation was not a question for Thomas Malthus. Underpopulation has become a question now, in the 21st century. Malthus' views did not take into account that people would become lazy, or that many people would prefer not to have children, as is the case today. To have children is to work hard. Nowadays many people aren't interested. It might ruin your career to have children; raising a family will take a lot of the energy that you could use to compete at your job and move up the career ladder. Selfish people use Malthus' opinions to avoid this moral dilemma. The ideas of Malthus have received a lot of followers because many people want to be selfish.

If Malthus' ideas are becoming even more widespread today, it's because people see in them a way to protect themselves and their egoism. Malthus provides a simple solution to avoid responsibility.

Today the population situation is totally different than it was during Malthus' time. Europe has not succumbed to overpopulation. On the contrary, the population of Europe is decreasing, quickly.

Mankind has always managed to solve food problems, and technical innovations can give enormous amounts of food surplus. And this is just the beginnning. Soon nano technology will enter the food market to and the abundance of food will be unlimited. Thus Malthus' views of overpopulation are not relevant in modern Europe.

Let us first go through the core principles of Malthus anyway:

CORE PRINCIPLES OF MALTHUS

1.   Food is necessary for human existence.

Sounds pretty logical, but the importance of food in daily life has been decreasing for many years in Europe. According to the World Trade Organisation, turnover through the food business was only 10% of the total turnover of world trade in recent years. Supplies of food have become less critical in many parts of the world. Yes, there are people starving. But at the same time you have mountains of stored butter and beef in the EU and the US. Thus individual situations in each various country are dependent on the question of knowledge and no-knowledge of the population.

2.    Human population tends to grow faster than planet earth manages to provide subsistence for people.

We have known for a long time that the population in Europe is decreasing, but at the same time agricultural production in Europe has become more and more effective. Smaller units can support larger amounts of human beings. The time of Thomas Robert Malthus has passed.

3.    The effects of these two unequal powers (human population and planet earth's production capabilities) must be kept equal.

This is a view that is typical from the farming perspective of 250 years ago. Thinkers of the 18th century didn't know any better. Today's innovations in agricultural production have totally changed the relationship between human population and earth's productive capacities.

4.    Since humans tend not to limit their population size voluntarily (preventative checks in Malthus' terminology), population control tends to be accomplished through the checks of famine, disease, poverty, and war.

Does Malthus know what he is talking about? Countries with the highest birthrates have a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge always results in high nativity. When it comes to disease, poverty and war, people have a subconscious tendency to increase their populations. Threats to survival tend to make the population grow, and not the other way around, as Malthus would suggest. Furthermore, in many countries with high rates of disease, poverty and war, people don't have enough money to buy contraceptives. Poor countries are run by dictators that easily use their greed to plunder the local population and keep it under-educated. Thus people end up having more children. In Europe on the other hand, where education is abundant, people have less children. Education is a major hindrance to population growth.

Modern history shows that humans tend to limit their population size voluntarily, and that this is more than enough to control population levels. Egocentrism can be much stronger than any subconscious desire to have children. Saving energy is more important than breeding when the possibility exists. Thus, we can state that Malthus' theories fit only those persons who want to avoid responsibility. They fit those who want an excuse for doing nothing so as to save their energy for themselves. Malthus' ideas give ammunition to the selfish persons who in the long run are supporting the world's worst dictators by not having any children of their own.

Question: So you want to return the woman to the kitchen?

Answer: Just the opposite! Please look at the back cover of the book "Old Europe Shame on You". There you will find a graph entitled "Cogito Ergo Sumus". This means "I think, therefore we exist." The graph shows that the more education a person has the more kids thy should have too. This implies forcing women to keep studying after they give birth. Waiting to have kids until after women finish their education inhibits birthrates and family growth. Women should have children while they are studying. But to do so women need the guarantee that career possibilities are connected to birth rates. Why not allow only women with at least two children to have a career? A compromise would be to arrange a special tax for companies to pay on their employees. For example, companies pay a 30% tax on th income of their male and female employees with no kids, a 20% tax on employees with one child, a 10% tax on employees with two kids, and no tax on employees with three or more kids. This will give multi-child parents an edge on the job market, and make it easier for them to support their families. It provides an incentive to companies to hire employees with children, and in turn provides an incentive to individuals to build families. Women having children should also receive personal assistance to do errands. These personal resources could be taken from the now useless military services of many European countries, or from people receiving welfare from European governments.

Question: I live in Burma. What is in this book for me?

Answer: "Old Europe Shame on You" is mainly a call to European countries to stabilize the future of their societies by increasing their birthrates. This will provide a more balanced future for Europe. If Europeans do not increase birthrates they will be forced to buy and import more and more foreign labor. This need for labor will eventually drive countries into war. Countries with high birthrates will be the objects which richer countries fight over. Greedy, labor-thirsty western countries must increase their own birth rates, and not steal workers or babies from other countries. The Western world should be forced to spend money to have more children and to raise these children, not steal well-educated personnel from poor countries that spend enormous efforts on raising children. For people living in Burma, the best outcome "Old Europe Shame on You" can provide is a route to a stable Western world which in turn will be able to keep peace in foreign relations, not fight wars. The more stable the Western world will be, the better the chances that other societies will be able to trade with the West and be an equal to the west, not a supplier of labor. The many countries of the world need to grow together, preferably in a balanced way. As it is now Eastern countries have high birthrates, and are thus guaranteeing a bright future. The East has a pleasant future to look forward to if it can achieve stable rule of law and fair governance. The West on the other hand is in great danger, for as its needs stay the same or increase, its supplies of people and thus labor are decreasing. If the West doesn't fix low birthrates now, it will one day admire the East for its growth.


Copyright © 2004